Azami 5352

Abu Dawud (1762), Tirmidhi (910), and Ibn Majah (3106) all narrated it via Hisham bin Urwa, from his father, from Najiya, and he related it. Imam Ahmad also narrated it through this same route (18942), and Ibn Khuzayma (2577), Ibn Hibban (4023), and Hakim (1/447) graded it sahih. Hakim said, "Sahih according to the standard of the two Shaykhs."Tirmidhi said, "This is a hasan sahih hadith." He said, "This is the practice among the people of knowledge. They say that regarding a voluntary sacrificial animal, if it becomes disabled, neither he nor anyone from his party should eat from it, and he should leave it for people to eat, and this discharges his obligation." This is the view of Shafii, Ahmad, and Ishaq. They said, "If he eats any of it, he must pay compensation for what he ate." Some scholars said, "If he eats anything from the voluntary sacrificial animal, then whoever ate it is liable." End of quote.Khattabi said, "It seems that its meaning is that this was forbidden to him and to his companions, in order to close off any avenue of suspicion against them."His saying "ataba," which follows the pattern of "fariha," means it came close to perishing. His saying "its sandal" means its collar.Also on this topic is what was narrated from Abu Qatada, who said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "Whoever drives a voluntary sacrificial animal and it becomes disabled should not eat from it, for if he eats from it he must replace it. Instead, he should slaughter it, then dip its collar in its blood, then strike it on its flank. But if it is an obligatory sacrificial animal, he may eat from it if he wishes, for it must be replaced regardless." Ibn Khuzayma narrated it in his Sahih (2580), and from him Bayhaqi (5/244), via Muhammad bin Abdul-Rahman, that is Ibn Abu Layla, from Ataa, from Abu Khalil, from Abu Qatada, and he related it. Ibn Khuzayma said, "This hadith is mursal, there is a man missing between Abu Khalil and Abu Qatada."I say, Muhammad bin Abdul-Rahman, that is Ibn Abu Layla, has poor memory. And Abu Khalil is Abdullah bin Khalil, also said to be Ibn Abu Khalil, and he is unknown. Haythami mentioned this in Majma al-Zawaid (3/228) and said, "Tabarani narrated it in al-Awsat as a raised report, and it is also narrated as a stopped report, in abbreviated form compared to the raised version. In the chain of all of them is Muhammad bin Abu Layla, who has poor memory."Also on this topic is a report from Amr bin Kharija Thumali, who said, I asked the Prophet ﷺ about a sacrificial animal that becomes disabled. The Prophet ﷺ said, "Slaughter it, dip its collar in its blood, and strike it on its flank" — or he said, "its side" — "and do not eat anything from it, neither you nor your companions." Imam Ahmad narrated it (17667, 17668), and Tabarani in al-Kabir (17/88), both via Sharik, from Layth, from Shahr, from Amr bin Kharija, and he related it. The wording given is Ahmad's, and Tabarani's wording is similar.In it is Sharik, that is Ibn Abdullah Nakhai, who was graded daif because of his poor memory, however he was corroborated, for Imam Ahmad narrated it (16609) via Abu Muawiya, meaning Shayban, from Layth, from Shahr, who said, "An Ansari man in charge of the sacrificial camels of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ narrated to me." So the mention of the companion was left unspecified, and he is Amr bin Kharija.Layth is Ibn Abu Salim, and Haythami criticized the report because of him in Majma al-Zawaid (3/228), saying, "Ahmad and Tabarani narrated it similarly in al-Kabir, and in it is Layth bin Abu Salim, who is trustworthy but engages in tadlis."I say, Layth bin Abu Salim is neither trustworthy nor a mudallis, rather he is a subject of criticism. Imam Ahmad said, "His hadith is confused." Abu Hatim said, "His hadith is daif." Abu Zura said, "His hadith is weak, it cannot be relied upon as proof according to the people of knowledge of hadith." Ibn Hibban said, "He became confused in his later years, so he would reverse chains of transmission, raise mursal reports to marfu status, and attribute to trustworthy narrators things that were not from their hadith." In summary, he was graded daif because of his memory, and I did not find anyone who described him as a mudallis. His teacher Shahr is Ibn Hawshab, about whom there is well-known criticism. However, his hadith is hasan when he does not contradict others and does not bring anything objectionable.Also on this topic is what was narrated from Salama bin Muhabbiq, who had been a companion of the Prophet ﷺ, from the Prophet ﷺ, that he sent two sacrificial camels with a man and said, "If something happens to them, slaughter them, dip the collar in their blood, then strike their flanks with it so that it is known that they are sacrificial camels" — he said, "the flank of each one" — he said, "and do not eat from them, neither you nor any of your companions, and leave them for those who come after you."Imam Ahmad narrated it (20070), and Tabarani in al-Kabir (6345), both via Ibn Jurayj, who said, Abdul-Kareem bin Abu Mukhariq informed me, from Muaz bin Sawa Rasibi, from Sinan bin Salama Huzali, from his father Salama, and he related it. The wording given is Ahmad's, and Tabarani's wording is abbreviated.Muaz bin Sawa, that is Raqashi, Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al-Thiqat (7/481), and did not mention anyone narrating from him other than Abdul-Kareem bin Abu Mukhariq, so he is unknown according to the people of knowledge of hadith. Abdul-Kareem bin Abu Mukhariq is daif according to the majority of the scholars of criticism and validation. Haythami criticized the report because of him in Majma al-Zawaid (3/228).